USA circumcision rates not dropping?!

In 2009 the CDC reported a rate of 32.5%

it is impossible to tell exactly what it is. Do you have any literature to suggest what the actual rate is?

It is reasonable to estimate that the rate is dropping as it has been steadily for many years. An estimate below 50% is some what safe. We are all waiting on new data. Circumcision is proven to fall as Medicaid coverage is dropped as it has been by 18 states already. South Carolina being the 18th as of two weeks ago.

Circumcision is a human rights violation when it is done with out consent no matter where it is being done. I have already discussed my criticisms of these African escapades. There is currently no evidence that any significant number of Africans have been circumcised as a result of this HIV scare. Once HIV vaccine and treatment is available(as it will be eventually), circucmisers will not be able to take advantage of this fear any more.

The best we can do is convince western cultures not to circumcise i do not believe debating with religious Muslims is going to alter their religious dogma.

most circumcised men in the world are Muslim. Islam is growing rapidly.

Circumcision is usually done for three important reasons:
1. For religious reason.
2. For health reason, and finally
3. For personal choice.
There is no other choice for the first two reasons, but for the third one, I would rather leave it for the body's owner to decide for it when he is old enough to decided for himself. It is his and he should be the one responsible for it. I have heard many, blaming or even cursing his parents for doing it for him, though how "good" the intention was!

The main focus is on developed countries since reliable information on less developed countries is almost impossible to obtain. Large English speaking countries are often discussed in English language sources since that is the information the authors have access to. I think that in many cases it is a cultural decision and, although I believe it is wrong, I don't think we can make laws banning it.

This is a very informative post! Thank you! Was reading something about this the other day, and it is discouraging to say the least. I not only hate statistic numbers, but surverys too. They are all BS.

I completely agree with you! For those who are genuinely concerned about infant circumcision, we need to write goverment and all the big health organizations. Males should have the right to choose.

Thank you again!

I agree completely. Girls have been protected from any form of genital modification since 1997 yet boys are not extended the same protection. Too many people claim freedom of religion, not realizing that an infant cannot choose which religion he wants to follow.

I am a Jew who is unhappy to have been circumcised as an infant

1. Because those are the countries that are most represented by people on here. So I guess those countries just pop up more.

2. Forced circumcision is never justified. Whoever says that has to also justify female circumcision, no matter how barbaric. Ethics isn't dependant on time and culture. Wrong is wrong.

-Connor

I completely agree with you and I am also puzzled as to why the US continues this! The ideologies are the same as Europe, yet they can't get past the facts. I think its now a "like father, like son" thing, because how can anyone still argue the cleanliness or STD debates!

I myself am uncircumsised, and seriously...I don't think it makes a county uncivilized or underdeveloped if everyone isn't circumsised. As long as you keep that **** clean you aren't going to get it infected, and also being uncircumsised = more pleasure.

People who advocate circumcision are just bad, stupid people.

too many idiots in america

Thanks for your FACTUAL Question
but I agree with @match and @e.w. that the 1990 figures were also for
hospital procedures and that clinics and rabbis and mohels were left out
then as well.

Clinics may well be making up a larger proportion as hospital rates
sharply decline,but clinics mostly charge more than hospitals.

The figure of 32 - 33% quoted in answers above are a big drop on
hospital procedures.

A more worrying development is the attempt to press-gang more
pubescent boys misdiagnosed wth <phimosis>

1) These countries publish comparable figures.
It is notable that figures have dropped sharply in all these countries
as education has been improved by the internet
and by the availabilty of European porn in U.S.A. since 1998.

2) I agree with @Beery and @ JackieNo that the first Ethical Principle
of the Medical profession should be First Do No Harm.

Where are the ethical committees of the American Academies and why the hell
are they not doing something about it.

No it is not justified in any country Civilised or Not Civilised.
And how can U.S.A call itself civilised when it denies all its males
recourse to Human Rights that are protected for females.

No it is not fine. It is Medically Unethical.
The medical profession should put it's own house in order
not rely on government to pass clumsy legislation.

+

I am happy to hear you agree it is a choice that should be made by the owner of the penis! Otherwise, what is there to say except that people need to know that they are messing with sensory system of their child? How is the disconnection of nerves from the brain not the first issue to consider for a doctor in discussing this with the parent? This is ignored whereas culture blah blah blah is mentioned (as the APA suggests). I would agree that no one really understands the import of the cutting of nerves but should that not be the first thing the CDC and others consider -- FIRST DO NO HARM?

Again, I appreciate your opining on this, but I disagree with some points in some of your earlier Qs. For example I think you mention that some circ takes less inner foreskin so many nerves are retained. Great, but there is a heavy concentration in an area that is always cut off. Many often say that the sexual harm is unclear. The Dr D... that often makes statements about the soon to be announced change in policy of APA (or is the CDC) often says that sexual satisfaction is subjective and therefore unknown. Well we do know that nerves are cut, the sensory system is damaged and the feeling of those sensors is turned off. I also personally know that the region cut off provides great pleasure and function. The owner or SO touches or stretches these areas and the owner feels pleasure. There is a need for this to be clearly stated. It is not subjective. Parents are being given the choice to HARM.

"done in hospital." Well besides the issue that most in the US say “in the hospital” (I found that curious), “done” so belittles the HARM.

I for one think that “done”, “snip” and even the term “circumcision” need to be removed from the lexicon, What IT is is cutting off parts of a baby boys penis and that is certainly harm. When a parent chooses to do this to their child it is certainly a loss of pleasure sensation with this TAKEN from the life of ANOTHER human.

The press, the medical community and people that share your opinion need to talk stright. Nerve damage, sensory system damage, loss of pleasure, loss of function HARM HARM HARM.

1. Why is it that when discussing the practice of circumcision, there is a main focus on what is happening only in the "UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and most notably the USA?"
This one is easy:
These are the only industrialized countries that ever had penis parts cut off large numbers of baby boys. JP, all of EU and former SU block never did this cutting off of penis parts of boys.

2. Do you think circumcision is justified in countries that are not considered "civilized" or "developed?" That somehow these numbers bear less importance in the lives of men?

No.

An article published in the New York Times on August 16, 2010 stated that as of 2009, only about 32.5% of American male infants were having male genital mutilation, called circumcision, forced on them.

This is a very big change, as more and more parents finally realize that circumcision is wrong, whether perpetrated on male or female minors, and always damages sexual feeling, function and ability.

Circumcision is minors is never justified; it isn't cleaner, it doesn't prevent any diseases or infections, and the only things that circumcision prevents are normal sexual feeling and function.

Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

ERIC

Circumcisions done outside of hospitals are comparatively rare, so unless the Jewish population of the US has skyrocketed in the last few years, circumcision rates have recently been greatly reduced. The figure I read was 32%. If we count non-hospital circumcisions, I very much doubt the numbers would increase by more than 5%.

In answer to your questions:

1. Probably because those countries have English as their common language. Also note that you fall victim to this tendency yourself.

2. Circumcision is never justified anywhere.

Circumcision is not 'fine'. It is a disgusting perversion! It's a gross violation of the body that is not just a personal matter for the victim. Circumcision affects the male sexual organ directly, but a mutilated penis also causes health problems for any female sexual partner. Also, in places where circumcision is common, there's often pressure put on men to get themselves mutilated. This is not a case of a man having a 'free' choice in the matter. This is why ALL circumcision needs to be outlawed unless it is a medical procedure of last resort.

While I agree that the most recent number (33%) is way off the board for the reasons you listed above, studies which include circumcisions outside of hospitals still show a rapid decline. 56% in 2008 includes all infant circumcisions performed by medical professionals, so everything but Mohels and illegal do-it-yourself circumcisions. The old numbers (from the 80s, 90s) didn't include Mohel circumcisions either so this shouldn't be an issue when making comparison.

Now, as for your questions:

1. Circumcision for non-religious purposes was promoted in English-speaking countries during the Victorian Era, and therefore they have the largest populations of men circumcised at birth for non-religious reasons. All of the other countries have progressed much faster than the United States in discouraging and de-funding routine infant circumcision, and therefore that leaves the US as the most prominent place where circumcision is happening for non-religious reasons. The other hot-beds of circumcision other than English speaking countries are Sub-Saharan Africa where it is being prescribed as a way to fight the AIDS epidemic (its failing by the way, and the studies that show otherwise lack control subjects, and therefore are non-objective).

2. Routine infant circumcision is NOT justified in any country, regardless of religious, social, economic, or health reasons. Before anyone calls me bigoted for saying religious infant circumcision should be illegal I charge them to look at their own views on FGM. Human Rights trumps Religious Rights every day. As for the African AIDS studies, these circumcisions give men and women a false sense of security, which leads to even less use of safe sex methods, more rape, and the further spread of AIDS.

Uncircumsized ***** are nasty, I`m glad i got circumsized as a baby so i wouldnt have to go without touching my penis for three weeks as a grown up, Do you how "frustrating" that would be for some people?